+1 Tested on Mac OS X On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Xiangrui Meng <men...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Krishna, I tested your linear regression example. For linear > regression, we changed its objective function from 1/n * \|A x - > b\|_2^2 to 1/(2n) * \|Ax - b\|_2^2 to be consistent with common least > squares formulations. It means you could re-produce the same result by > multiplying the step size by 2. This is not a problem if both run > until convergence (if not blow up). However, in your example, a very > small step size is chosen and it didn't converge in 100 iterations. In > this case, the step size matters. I will put a note in the migration > guide. Thanks! -Xiangrui > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > I'm +1 as I have not heard of any one else seeing the Hive test > > failure, which is likely a test issue rather than code issue anyway, > > and not a blocker. > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Although the problem is small, especially if indeed the essential docs > >> changes are following just a couple days behind the final release, I > >> mean, why the rush if they're essential? wait a couple days, finish > >> them, make the release. > >> > >> Answer is, I think these changes aren't actually essential given the > >> comment from tdas, so: just mark these Critical? (although ... they do > >> say they're changes for the 1.3 release, so kind of funny to get to > >> them for 1.3.x or 1.4, but that's not important now.) > >> > >> I thought that Blocker really meant Blocker in this project, as I've > >> been encouraged to use it to mean "don't release without this." I > >> think we should use it that way. Just thinking of it as "extra > >> Critical" doesn't add anything. I don't think Documentation should be > >> special-cased as less important, and I don't think there's confusion > >> if Blocker means what it says, so I'd 'fix' that way. > >> > >> If nobody sees the Hive failure I observed, and if we can just zap > >> those "Blockers" one way or the other, +1 > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Sean, > >>> > >>> The docs are distributed and consumed in a fundamentally different way > >>> than Spark code itself. So we've always considered the "deadline" for > >>> doc changes to be when the release is finally posted. > >>> > >>> If there are small inconsistencies with the docs present in the source > >>> code for that release tag, IMO that doesn't matter much since we don't > >>> even distribute the docs with Spark's binary releases and virtually no > >>> one builds and hosts the docs on their own (that I am aware of, at > >>> least). Perhaps we can recommend if people want to build the doc > >>> sources that they should always grab the head of the most recent > >>> release branch, to set expectations accordingly. > >>> > >>> In the past we haven't considered it worth holding up the release > >>> process for the purpose of the docs. It just doesn't make sense since > >>> they are consumed "as a service". If we decide to change this > >>> convention, it would mean shipping our releases later, since we > >>> could't pipeline the doc finalization with voting. > >>> > >>> - Patrick > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >>>> Given the title and tagging, it sounds like there could be some > >>>> must-have doc changes to go with what is being released as 1.3. It can > >>>> be finished later, and published later, but then the docs source > >>>> shipped with the release doesn't match the site, and until then, 1.3 > >>>> is released without some "must-have" docs for 1.3 on the site. > >>>> > >>>> The real question to me is: are there any further, absolutely > >>>> essential doc changes that need to accompany 1.3 or not? > >>>> > >>>> If not, just resolve these. If there are, then it seems like the > >>>> release has to block on them. If there are some docs that should have > >>>> gone in for 1.3, but didn't, but aren't essential, well I suppose it > >>>> bears thinking about how to not slip as much work, but it doesn't > >>>> block. > >>>> > >>>> I think Documentation issues certainly can be a blocker and shouldn't > >>>> be specially ignored. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> BTW the UISeleniumSuite issue is a real failure, but I do not think it > >>>> is serious: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6205 It isn't > >>>> a regression from 1.2.x, but only affects tests, and only affects a > >>>> subset of build profiles. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> Hey Sean, > >>>>> > >>>>>> SPARK-5310 Update SQL programming guide for 1.3 > >>>>>> SPARK-5183 Document data source API > >>>>>> SPARK-6128 Update Spark Streaming Guide for Spark 1.3 > >>>>> > >>>>> For these, the issue is that they are documentation JIRA's, which > >>>>> don't need to be timed exactly with the release vote, since we can > >>>>> update the documentation on the website whenever we want. In the past > >>>>> I've just mentally filtered these out when considering RC's. I see a > >>>>> few options here: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. We downgrade such issues away from Blocker (more clear, but we > risk > >>>>> loosing them in the fray if they really are things we want to have > >>>>> before the release is posted). > >>>>> 2. We provide a filter to the community that excludes 'Documentation' > >>>>> issues and shows all other blockers for 1.3. We can put this on the > >>>>> wiki, for instance. > >>>>> > >>>>> Which do you prefer? > >>>>> > >>>>> - Patrick > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
